Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

I'm just curious why you would rely on internet chatboards to educate you about history.

Haven't you figured it out already? I'm not doing this to educate myself about history.

Seriously, the Vatican is freaking weak towards the Jews, Muslims, and all the other Christ-deniers. I should hope that if Benedict is serious he won't demand that the SPPX bend to the complaints of the ADL. Prayers for the conversion of the Jews is not wrong. What the heck else would they ever expect their relations with any Christian church to center around? How much we all like bagels? (I do love me a good bagel...)

Haven't you figured it out already? By questioning Marc's sacred cow, you automatically show that you don't know what you're talking about. It doesn't matter how much credibility you had beforehand.

I am basically looking for a detailed refutation of the Butz book. This book is in the library here, but it is in a caged section where access is restricted and you must sign in and leave your ID with the clerk. However, now the book has appeared online with free access to anyone. I am not saying that Butz is right, but I would like to crack open a book or article that gives a refutation step by step of this particular book written from an engineering standpoint.

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

I'm just curious why you would rely on internet chatboards to educate you about history.

Haven't you figured it out already? I'm not doing this to educate myself about history.

Oh I know that. It's more about projecting yourself as the Socratic gadfly of the internetz. But, as someone else mentioned, there are better places and better people for that sort of thing.

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".

The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)

Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".

The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)

Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.

So you are a philosophical skeptic in the true sense and thus not an Orthodox Christian?

How do you prove all that stuff? What truth claim can you possibly utter given the litany of your questions above?

Those questions you raise are constantly being asked within academia by experts in their fields in lieu of a long winding road of world-historical events that have brought us to the point where we tend to allot credence to certain groups of people who went they primarily agree on something, we accept their judgement.

Have you lived in academia? I've actually seen fist fights break out at an English Symposium and that was before the liquor was poured. It ain't like you have a fleet of rubber stamping folks out there OKing the same research over and over.

The internet "scholar" takes a blip of a disagreement out of a journal or starts asking "hard" questions starting from nothing.

Lotsa Jews died. We agree, I think. I don't tend to read marc's posts cause he is another person who selectively applies critical thought to certain subjects. I read his first few posts and he didn't seem to be going all Zionist (which I reject), so I ignored that part of the debate.

But you are placing yourself in the philosophical skeptical corner. Which means you pretty much are unable to make any statement regarding "truth claims", even the fact that they ought to be questioned.

This ain't sophistry here. Some folks really have held to this belief.

We now know creation is the product of "evolution" in the general sense, well those of us who are not nuts, that is the consensus of the scientific community. The experts. How that all works out gets argued within that community. The presence of those arguments or the changes in our understanding of things doesn't discount understanding altogether.

Who are the people examining that historical record? The historians. Are we all to learn and study everything for ourselves? Even then we could never be sure of anything to any degree. Should I learn pharmacy while I am at it?

Some folks in academia are unjustly painted as kooks, holocaust deniers ain't them.

I do think they should be allowed to hold those views (unlike they can in France and Germany for example) without being legally prosecuted.

But again, we've taken human ugliness and complication and reduced to some bloodless questions like:

How do you know?How do you know they know?etc.

If you would like to open up a thread on epistemology in general have at it. But to take a stance close to philosophical skepticism in this thread really make zero sense.

And I am finished with cute and clever remarks. For this thread at least.

This can also be seen as an appeal to authority, because historians are viewed as authoritative in matters pertaining to history. It's not actually a problem to appeal to an authority in an argument if the authority is legitimate. It doesn't absolutley prove a position but it certainly supports the view. Now it would be fallacious to argue that a certain historical reality is true because an English teacher said so. That is an illegitimate appeal to authority.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".

The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)

Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.

Without reiterating Orthonorm's excellent comments, I would ask you what is the information you've seen (you know, sources?), and why do you give it the credence you seem to give it? I would also add that you seem adept at asking questions but not quite as skilled in answering those posed to you, at least on this thread.

By the way, if we're only talking about those who perished in the gas chambers themselves, as opposed to by other means, I think that's already been addressed a little earlier in this thread.

Here you go. I have culled out a few of the most pertinent statements to answer questions here about evidence for the existence and size of the Holocaust but it would be best to read the whole article. Here is the link:

People with a keen interest in a topic are the ones who are going to take the time and effort to make a thorough case.

What you should take note of is that they reference totally objective expert sources, such as:

"Perhaps most significantly, in December 1991, the governing council of the American Historical Association (AHA), the nation's largest and oldest professional organization for historians, unanimously approved a statement condemning the Holocaust-denial movement, stating, "No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place." The council's action came in response to a petition circulated among members calling for an official statement against Holocaust-denial propaganda; the petition had been signed by more than 300 members attending the organization's annual conference. Moreover, in 1994, the AHA reaffirmed its position in a press release which stated that "the Association will not provide a forum for views that are, at best, a form of academic fraud."

Also, for those unfamiliar with the topic the article provided some very basic information. For example, a couple of people here thought the evidence for the Holocaust was based purely on hearsay from survivors. The historical record is far more reliable than just that. German documentation was extensive, as is their habit with all things they do. There is also corroborating documentation from the Soviets as well. So now those folks know better if they thought the Holocaust was based on flimsy personal testimonies..... We are all here to learn.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".

The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)

Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.

So you are a philosophical skeptic in the true sense and thus not an Orthodox Christian?

I don't know where you get that idea. I just believe that certain truth claims need to be challenged.

Here you go. I have culled out a few of the most pertinent statements to answer questions here about evidence for the existence and size of the Holocaust but it would be best to read the whole article. Here is the link:

People with a keen interest in a topic are the ones who are going to take the time and effort to make a thorough case.

What you should take note of is that they reference totally objective expert sources, such as:

"Perhaps most significantly, in December 1991, the governing council of the American Historical Association (AHA), the nation's largest and oldest professional organization for historians, unanimously approved a statement condemning the Holocaust-denial movement, stating, "No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place." The council's action came in response to a petition circulated among members calling for an official statement against Holocaust-denial propaganda; the petition had been signed by more than 300 members attending the organization's annual conference. Moreover, in 1994, the AHA reaffirmed its position in a press release which stated that "the Association will not provide a forum for views that are, at best, a form of academic fraud."

Also, for those unfamiliar with the topic the article provided some very basic information. For example, a couple of people here thought the evidence for the Holocaust was based purely on hearsay from survivors. The historical record is far more reliable than just that. German documentation was extensive, as is their habit with all things they do. There is also corroborating documentation from the Soviets as well. So now those folks know better if they thought the Holocaust was based on flimsy personal testimonies..... We are all here to learn.

You've trotted out that appeal to consensus before. Do you have any other arguments you can offer us?

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true.

There is a rhetorical trick that people with very weak or outlandish arguments often use. They appeal to Absolute Truth as the standard. Yes indeed, the entirety of the Academic Community could be wrong. It's possible. The Earth "Could be" flat. Scientology could be the True Religion... It "Could be".

But that is not the Standard reasonable people go by. The Standard is evidence beyond any reasonable doubt as to be able to persuade an ordinarily prudent and objective person.

Here is a true statement. It is extraordinarily unlikely that the Holocaust deniers are correct.

Why is that? It is because the entire community of highly credentialed Historians and their organizations have studied the topic in depth and have concluded that Holocaust Denial is a form of "academic fraud". In addition, this is not an obscure topic. The Holocaust is a major event in World History and a fairly recent event. In other words, it is not difficult for scholars to study it in depth and to draw final conclusions that have held up under rigorous scrutiny.

The Holocaust has been studied in depth by reliable scholars at great length. Their conclusions have held up over time under the scrutiny of their peers. The new information that has come along ( Such as the release of Soviet documents) has only strengthen that case, not weakened it.

The book is closed on the basic facts and numbers of the Holocaust. Find another hobby.

« Last Edit: September 21, 2011, 04:17:52 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Here you go. I have culled out a few of the most pertinent statements to answer questions here about evidence for the existence and size of the Holocaust but it would be best to read the whole article. Here is the link:

People with a keen interest in a topic are the ones who are going to take the time and effort to make a thorough case.

What you should take note of is that they reference totally objective expert sources, such as:

"Perhaps most significantly, in December 1991, the governing council of the American Historical Association (AHA), the nation's largest and oldest professional organization for historians, unanimously approved a statement condemning the Holocaust-denial movement, stating, "No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place." The council's action came in response to a petition circulated among members calling for an official statement against Holocaust-denial propaganda; the petition had been signed by more than 300 members attending the organization's annual conference. Moreover, in 1994, the AHA reaffirmed its position in a press release which stated that "the Association will not provide a forum for views that are, at best, a form of academic fraud."

Also, for those unfamiliar with the topic the article provided some very basic information. For example, a couple of people here thought the evidence for the Holocaust was based purely on hearsay from survivors. The historical record is far more reliable than just that. German documentation was extensive, as is their habit with all things they do. There is also corroborating documentation from the Soviets as well. So now those folks know better if they thought the Holocaust was based on flimsy personal testimonies..... We are all here to learn.

You've trotted out that appeal to consensus before. Do you have any other arguments you can offer us?

Peter--

1. Have you been to Yad Vashem?

2. Have you been to the Holocaust Museum in D.C.?

3. Have you read The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945 by Lucy S. Dawidowicz or anything related to it?

Here you go. I have culled out a few of the most pertinent statements to answer questions here about evidence for the existence and size of the Holocaust but it would be best to read the whole article. Here is the link:

People with a keen interest in a topic are the ones who are going to take the time and effort to make a thorough case.

What you should take note of is that they reference totally objective expert sources, such as:

"Perhaps most significantly, in December 1991, the governing council of the American Historical Association (AHA), the nation's largest and oldest professional organization for historians, unanimously approved a statement condemning the Holocaust-denial movement, stating, "No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place." The council's action came in response to a petition circulated among members calling for an official statement against Holocaust-denial propaganda; the petition had been signed by more than 300 members attending the organization's annual conference. Moreover, in 1994, the AHA reaffirmed its position in a press release which stated that "the Association will not provide a forum for views that are, at best, a form of academic fraud."

Also, for those unfamiliar with the topic the article provided some very basic information. For example, a couple of people here thought the evidence for the Holocaust was based purely on hearsay from survivors. The historical record is far more reliable than just that. German documentation was extensive, as is their habit with all things they do. There is also corroborating documentation from the Soviets as well. So now those folks know better if they thought the Holocaust was based on flimsy personal testimonies..... We are all here to learn.

You've trotted out that appeal to consensus before. Do you have any other arguments you can offer us?

Nope..that's about it. The overwhelming consensus among scholars and historians and their professional organizations is that Holocaust Denial amounts to Academic Fraud. I find that persuasive and pretty darn final.

If you think that's flimsy evidence then that's totally your call.

« Last Edit: September 21, 2011, 04:45:14 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".

The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)

Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.

Without reiterating Orthonorm's excellent comments, I would ask you what is the information you've seen (you know, sources?),

Have you watched the video linked to this thread by Ioannis Climacus? I know nothing of David Cole's background, except that he identifies himself as a Jew by birth and an atheist by choice. Might he be a nut? I don't know. Having watched his rational presentation of his case, however, challenged me to think about all the images I'd been fed regarding the Holocaust.

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".

The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)

Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.

Without reiterating Orthonorm's excellent comments, I would ask you what is the information you've seen (you know, sources?),

Have you watched the video linked to this thread by Ioannis Climacus? I know nothing of David Cole's background, except that he identifies himself as a Jew by birth and an atheist by choice. Might he be a nut? I don't know. Having watched his rational presentation of his case, however, challenged me to think about all the images I'd been fed regarding the Holocaust.

I would also add that you seem adept at asking questions but not quite as skilled in answering those posed to you, at least on this thread.

Thanks for noticing that. I do try to be somewhat nebulous about what I believe. I figure that the fewer truth claims I make, the less often I bear the burden of proof to substantiate my truth claims.

There will always be people on the outside fringe of scholarship. You should try to properly locate those people on your own radar screen as way out of the box. Listen to whatever makes some sense but then realize that people far more expert than you ( in this case) dismiss Holocaust Denial out of hand. The consensus is overwhelming and for good reason.

For every fringe element you look at on the Internet it would be good to balance out your understanding with what most experts understand to be true and discover why..

Several books have been recommended to you. Get ye to a library.

PS.. Oh and Historical Scholarship is not a "Received Tradition". That makes it sound like something taken on Faith. Rather the expert study of History is a "Social Science" . Standards are high and fraud is pretty easily spotted.

« Last Edit: September 21, 2011, 04:37:44 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".

The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)

Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.

Without reiterating Orthonorm's excellent comments, I would ask you what is the information you've seen (you know, sources?),

Have you watched the video linked to this thread by Ioannis Climacus? I know nothing of David Cole's background, except that he identifies himself as a Jew by birth and an atheist by choice. Might he be a nut? I don't know. Having watched his rational presentation of his case, however, challenged me to think about all the images I'd been fed regarding the Holocaust.

I would also add that you seem adept at asking questions but not quite as skilled in answering those posed to you, at least on this thread.

Thanks for noticing that. I do try to be somewhat nebulous about what I believe. I figure that the fewer truth claims I make, the less often I bear the burden of proof to substantiate my truth claims.

So....you've seen 1 internet video (unfortunately the computer I work on here is unable to access videos) and that's thrown everything (whatever *that* is) you've learned about the Holocaust previously into doubt? Oy vey. So...because it's caused you to doubt what you think you previously "knew", that certainly implies giving it credence in enough measure to overshadow your prior knowledge. So, more credence? And you never answered why you give it credence. I can make up things and present them in a totally "rational" manner, as if they were God's truth, and they'd still be wrong. I wonder if you'd believe me ?

And you haven't gotten any better at all in answering others' questions, by the way.

Oh, and by the way, it seems to me somewhat disingenuous at the very least, to try to pin others down about their beliefs and the sources of their knowledge while being yourself as vague as possible about your own. You seem more than happy to ignore the weight of evidence that is out there in the world (you know, all that "consensus" stuff) for you to investigate yourself if you were willing to be intellectually honest with yourself and others, as you demand of others.

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".

The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)

Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.

Without reiterating Orthonorm's excellent comments, I would ask you what is the information you've seen (you know, sources?),

Have you watched the video linked to this thread by Ioannis Climacus? I know nothing of David Cole's background, except that he identifies himself as a Jew by birth and an atheist by choice. Might he be a nut? I don't know. Having watched his rational presentation of his case, however, challenged me to think about all the images I'd been fed regarding the Holocaust.

PS.. Oh and Historical Scholarship is not a "Received Tradition". That makes it sound like something taken on Faith. Rather the expert study of History is a "Social Science" .

And yet it sounds to me as if there's still a consensus belief, such that the refusal to adhere to it automatically marks one as a fraud whether that person is truly a fraud or not. That looks to me like how we treat religious dogma.

And you haven't gotten any better at all in answering others' questions, by the way.

Oh, and by the way, it seems to me somewhat disingenuous at the very least, to try to pin others down about their beliefs and the sources of their knowledge while being yourself as vague as possible about your own.

No, I'm actually trying to be consistent. I question other persons' truth claims because I don't like dogmatism. Why, then, would I substitute my own dogmatism for someone else's?

You seem more than happy to ignore the weight of evidence that is out there in the world (you know, all that "consensus" stuff) for you to investigate yourself if you were willing to be intellectually honest with yourself and others, as you demand of others.

Seriously, what "weight of evidence" is there on this thread? If I were truly to investigate the truth claims made on this thread--BTW, you have no idea what I do away from this forum, so your perception that I'm all too happy to ignore the evidence and refuse to do my own research may in fact be way off base--do you honestly think I'd conduct my research here?

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".

The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)

Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.

Without reiterating Orthonorm's excellent comments, I would ask you what is the information you've seen (you know, sources?),

Have you watched the video linked to this thread by Ioannis Climacus? I know nothing of David Cole's background, except that he identifies himself as a Jew by birth and an atheist by choice. Might he be a nut? I don't know. Having watched his rational presentation of his case, however, challenged me to think about all the images I'd been fed regarding the Holocaust.

PS.. Oh and Historical Scholarship is not a "Received Tradition". That makes it sound like something taken on Faith. Rather the expert study of History is a "Social Science" .

And yet it sounds to me as if there's still a consensus belief, such that the refusal to adhere to it automatically marks one as a fraud whether that person is truly a fraud or not. That looks to me like how we treat religious dogma.

But don't you think that branding someone a fraud merely because he won't toe the party line is a violation of the spirit of academia?

Peter,

A fraud is someone who uses deceit, trickery, or outright lies to advance their theory or position. One who doesn't toe the party line is not, per se, a fraud.

When there is overwhelming abundance of evidence gathered by numerous independent sources to create a consensus, refusing to adhere to that consensus doesn't make one a fraud. It just makes one look, well, blind or silly perhaps, or at worst, intransigent and/or stupid.

And you haven't gotten any better at all in answering others' questions, by the way.

Oh, and by the way, it seems to me somewhat disingenuous at the very least, to try to pin others down about their beliefs and the sources of their knowledge while being yourself as vague as possible about your own.

No, I'm actually trying to be consistent. I question other persons' truth claims because I don't like dogmatism. Why, then, would I substitute my own dogmatism for someone else's?

You seem more than happy to ignore the weight of evidence that is out there in the world (you know, all that "consensus" stuff) for you to investigate yourself if you were willing to be intellectually honest with yourself and others, as you demand of others.

Seriously, what "weight of evidence" is there on this thread? If I were truly to investigate the truth claims made on this thread--BTW, you have no idea what I do away from this forum, so your perception that I'm all too happy to ignore the evidence and refuse to do my own research may in fact be way off base--do you honestly think I'd conduct my research here?

Ha! Consistency is good. Unless, of course, it becomes dogmatic .

The "weight of evidence" consists in the plethora of scholarly, academic, and legal works about the Holocaust that are available to any inquiring member of the public, both on the internet and in libraries, on amazon.com, and any number of bookstores. No one, I believe, is talking about a weight of evidence peculiar to this thread, and no one, least of all me, would expect you to conduct serious research about the Holocaust on an Orthodox internet discussion board, of all places. Just suggesting that you *do* some serious, or even some relatively superficial with serious sources, research about it before demanding proof of others, who may actually know a little bit more than you of what they are talking about. And a few serious, respectable and respected sources have been suggested to you.

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".

The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)

Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.

Without reiterating Orthonorm's excellent comments, I would ask you what is the information you've seen (you know, sources?),

Have you watched the video linked to this thread by Ioannis Climacus? I know nothing of David Cole's background, except that he identifies himself as a Jew by birth and an atheist by choice. Might he be a nut? I don't know. Having watched his rational presentation of his case, however, challenged me to think about all the images I'd been fed regarding the Holocaust.

PS.. Oh and Historical Scholarship is not a "Received Tradition". That makes it sound like something taken on Faith. Rather the expert study of History is a "Social Science" .

And yet it sounds to me as if there's still a consensus belief, such that the refusal to adhere to it automatically marks one as a fraud whether that person is truly a fraud or not. That looks to me like how we treat religious dogma.

But don't you think that branding someone a fraud merely because he won't toe the party line is a violation of the spirit of academia?

Peter,

A fraud is someone who uses deceit, trickery, or outright lies to advance their theory or position. One who doesn't toe the party line is not, per se, a fraud.

When there is overwhelming abundance of evidence gathered by numerous independent sources to create a consensus, refusing to adhere to that consensus doesn't make one a fraud. It just makes one look, well, blind or silly perhaps, or at worst, intransigent and/or stupid.

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true.

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true.

Let's make this clear. I did not write that PtA did.

( oo )

Oh my eyes. Must you shout?

With this detour, should we detour further into a thread comparing German and Jewish beer?

BACK ON TOPIC: Perhaps we should tell the ADL to mind their own business and quit interfering with Christian Holy Services.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true.

Perhaps we should tell the ADL to mind their own business and quit interfering with Christian Holy Services.

Or you could ignore them. Usually the best way to extinguish unwanted behavior.

For such a small organization, they get an inappropriately large amount of press coverage when they throw their little tantrums.

« Last Edit: September 21, 2011, 07:15:13 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".

The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)

Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.

Without reiterating Orthonorm's excellent comments, I would ask you what is the information you've seen (you know, sources?),

Have you watched the video linked to this thread by Ioannis Climacus? I know nothing of David Cole's background, except that he identifies himself as a Jew by birth and an atheist by choice. Might he be a nut? I don't know. Having watched his rational presentation of his case, however, challenged me to think about all the images I'd been fed regarding the Holocaust.

PS.. Oh and Historical Scholarship is not a "Received Tradition". That makes it sound like something taken on Faith. Rather the expert study of History is a "Social Science" .

And yet it sounds to me as if there's still a consensus belief, such that the refusal to adhere to it automatically marks one as a fraud whether that person is truly a fraud or not. That looks to me like how we treat religious dogma.

But don't you think that branding someone a fraud merely because he won't toe the party line is a violation of the spirit of academia?

Well now your just fishing for excuses..

There is no "Party" and therefore no Party Line. Any scholar who came up with credible evidence that could hold up would the the Academic Toast of the Town..Book deals.. Oprah ( if she were still on) etc. The sad fact is that Holocaust Denial doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's been labeled a Fraud because of specious evidence that has not held up. Sorry.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".

The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)

Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.

Without reiterating Orthonorm's excellent comments, I would ask you what is the information you've seen (you know, sources?),

Have you watched the video linked to this thread by Ioannis Climacus? I know nothing of David Cole's background, except that he identifies himself as a Jew by birth and an atheist by choice. Might he be a nut? I don't know. Having watched his rational presentation of his case, however, challenged me to think about all the images I'd been fed regarding the Holocaust.

PS.. Oh and Historical Scholarship is not a "Received Tradition". That makes it sound like something taken on Faith. Rather the expert study of History is a "Social Science" .

And yet it sounds to me as if there's still a consensus belief, such that the refusal to adhere to it automatically marks one as a fraud whether that person is truly a fraud or not. That looks to me like how we treat religious dogma.

But don't you think that branding someone a fraud merely because he won't toe the party line is a violation of the spirit of academia?

Peter,

A fraud is someone who uses deceit, trickery, or outright lies to advance their theory or position. One who doesn't toe the party line is not, per se, a fraud.

When there is overwhelming abundance of evidence gathered by numerous independent sources to create a consensus, refusing to adhere to that consensus doesn't make one a fraud. It just makes one look, well, blind or silly perhaps, or at worst, intransigent and/or stupid.

Which only makes my point.

I think an Academic Fraud would be someone who uses specious evidence to gain notoriety or advancement in his field or money. In this case Holocaust Denial is often politically motivated so the conclusion comes first and then they backfill with conjecture and weak evidence that can only fool their naive target political audience but not professional historians.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true.

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".

The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)

Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.

Without reiterating Orthonorm's excellent comments, I would ask you what is the information you've seen (you know, sources?),

Have you watched the video linked to this thread by Ioannis Climacus? I know nothing of David Cole's background, except that he identifies himself as a Jew by birth and an atheist by choice. Might he be a nut? I don't know. Having watched his rational presentation of his case, however, challenged me to think about all the images I'd been fed regarding the Holocaust.

PS.. Oh and Historical Scholarship is not a "Received Tradition". That makes it sound like something taken on Faith. Rather the expert study of History is a "Social Science" .

And yet it sounds to me as if there's still a consensus belief, such that the refusal to adhere to it automatically marks one as a fraud whether that person is truly a fraud or not. That looks to me like how we treat religious dogma.

There is no "Party" and therefore no Party Line. Any scholar who came up with credible evidence that could hold up would the the Academic Toast of the Town..Book deals.. Oprah ( if she were still on) etc. The sad fact is that Holocaust Denial doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's been labeled a Fraud because of specious evidence that has not held up. Sorry.

And yet, you're still resorting to your appeal to consensus. I see nothing in here that actually refutes my suspicion that there is a party line that a historian must toe if he wants to be taken seriously.

I think an Academic Fraud would be someone who uses specious evidence to gain notoriety or advancement in his field or money. In this case Holocaust Denial is often politically motivated so the conclusion comes first and then they backfill with conjecture and weak evidence that can only fool their naive target political audience but not professional historians.

LOL. You could also make up a holocaust story and write a book and make a ton of money. People believe alot of those. Goes both ways.

There is no "Party" and therefore no Party Line. Any scholar who came up with credible evidence that could hold up would the the Academic Toast of the Town..Book deals.. Oprah ( if she were still on) etc. The sad fact is that Holocaust Denial doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's been labeled a Fraud because of specious evidence that has not held up. Sorry.

I will repeat, people keep changing the story all the time, making the numbers incredibly and unrealistically high, society allows this, why? Because if you question any official statement of the holocaust, dare say the numbers are out of proportion, what happens? You are labelled anti-semitic. Doing so is bigotry in its own right.

There is no "Party" and therefore no Party Line. Any scholar who came up with credible evidence that could hold up would the the Academic Toast of the Town..Book deals.. Oprah ( if she were still on) etc. The sad fact is that Holocaust Denial doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's been labeled a Fraud because of specious evidence that has not held up. Sorry.

I will repeat, people keep changing the story all the time, making the numbers incredibly and unrealistically high, society allows this, why? Because if you question any official statement of the holocaust, dare say the numbers are out of proportion, what happens? You are labelled anti-semitic. Doing so is bigotry in its own right.

Usually it takes more than arguing that the Holocaust numbers are slightly high for most people to use the anti-Semitism card.

Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right